Condoleezza Rice avows; President is above law
Condi Rice Pulls a Nixon: If the President Orders Torture, It Must be Legal
copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org Students at Stanford stood still as they listened to former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice speak. As the scholars pondered the words of the prominent woman who presented her case for waterboarding, many mused; "Is it Richard Nixon, or Condoleezza Rice? Which person thinks a President is above the law?" One might wonder. Today, those who viewed a video taped classroom conversation with Secretary Rice express astonishment as well. In her defense for any action she took to advocate for this an extreme interrogation technique Condoleezza Rice both blamed her former boss, George W. Bush and justified his decision.
|
The erudite educator, former Secretary Rice may recall her history; nonetheless, her recollection is not as the recently released, exhaustive, Senate Intelligence Committee reports reveal. As National Security Adviser to former President George W. Bush, in July 2002, Condoleezza Rice verbally approved a request from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to waterboard the alleged al-Qaida terrorist, Abu Zubaydah.
Philip Zelikow, the policy representative to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the National Securities Council (NSC) Deputies Committee, remembers as the Senate narrative study states. Indeed, he express his concern his role in intense "interrogation plans," and for awareness that not only were there legal parameters to consider, thoughts of how lives and limbs could be crushed haunted Mister Zelikow.
Today, the former National Securities Council policy commissioner feels he has stayed silent for too long. Now that light has begun to shine on the Bush Administration's seek-to-destroy-detainees-will strategy the former dissenter from within the Bush White House believes he must speak of what he classifies as torture. He states, as is substantiated in the infamous "memos."
(T)he program developed "interrogation plans" to disorient, abuse, dehumanize, and torment individuals over time.
The plan employed the combined, cumulative use of many techniques of medically-monitored physical coercion. Before getting to water-boarding, the captive had already been stripped naked, shackled to ceiling chains keeping him standing so he cannot fall asleep for extended periods, hosed periodically with cold water, slapped around, jammed into boxes, etc. etc. Sleep deprivation is most important.
Mister Zelikow retraces as Miss Rice does not. In 2006, the United States Human Rights First organization revealed, since August 2002 almost 100 Iraq and Afghanistan detainees died, while in the custody of Americans. Accounts affirm, at least 34 of the these fatalities were suspected or confirmed homicides. Most attest, blood was spilled at the hands of the Bush Administration. How quickly those who approved such torturous measures forget the methods or the madness that allowed for murder.
As an expert in International Affairs; however, the Professor is likely extremely familiar with history further removed from her own personal reality. Condoleezza Rice could possibly recite the facts as they relate to the ratification of resolution 39/46 of 10, which was adopted and opened for signature on December 1984. On June 26, 1987, the General Assembly put into force what the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment advised.
The approved Articles clearly outline the definition of torture, regardless of country or who might reign. A casual reader need only peruse the first writ to understand what constitutes extreme persecution or a serious crime against humanity.
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
The second statement explicates without exception who might have the power to ignore the initial premise. In short, legally, the sanctioned rule, which the United States signed onto, states no man, women, child, Head of State, President, Premier, Prime Minister, or even autocrat can authorize the intentional infliction of agony. Nor can a National Security Adviser advocate for what is essentially illegal and inhumane.
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Yet, Secretary Rice avowed; her conveyance of a communiqué did not amount to a command for consent. She, personally condoned nothing. Condoleezza Rice, in her statement to Stanford students declared, "I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did."
With International Law in mind, and her own desire not to be implicated in a high crime or misdemeanor, the once top Diplomat, now Political Science Professorand Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute proclaims.
"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." (emphasis added)
Perhaps, Condoleezza Rice feels a bit uncertain. She might think there is need to justify her actions. As the American people speak of a possible special prosecutor Professor Rice may fear what the Obama Administration might do. The current President has yet to issue a pardon to Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, former Commander-In-Chief Bush or any of their cohorts. Miss Rice may hope her words will elicit the forgiveness Richard Milhous Nixon received from his successor, Gerald Ford.
Likely, the former Secretary of State does now wonder whether her word may be a greater source of "fascination" to someone such as Sir David Frost. She is determined not to offer her confessions on air. Contrite is not Condie's style. For now, she, as other American's can only reflect on a transcript and wonder, "Is it Condoleezza Rice or Richard Nixon who better channels a questionable confidence?
Please ponder the program, that, were it not for the officially certified clemency, might have done another Administration in.
Frost: The wave of dissent, occasionally violent, which followed in the wake of the Cambodian incursion, prompted President Nixon to demand better intelligence about the people who were opposing him. To this end, the Deputy White House Counsel, Tom Huston, arranged a series of meetings with representatives of the CIA, the FBI, and other police and intelligence agencies.
These meetings produced a plan, the Huston Plan, which advocated the systematic use of wiretappings, burglaries, or so-called black bag jobs, mail openings and infiltration against antiwar groups and others. Some of these activities, as Huston emphasized to Nixon, were clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the president approved the plan. Five days later, after opposition from J. Edgar Hoover, the plan was withdrawn, but the president's approval was later to be listed in the Articles of Impeachment as an alleged abuse of presidential power.
Frost: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
Frost: By definition.
Nixon: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
Frost: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?
Nixon: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don't know whether it can be done today or not.
Frost: Pulling some of our discussions together, as it were; speaking of the Presidency and in an interrogatory filed with the Church Committee, you stated, quote, "It's quite obvious that there are certain inherently government activities, which, if undertaken by the sovereign in protection of the interests of the nation's security are lawful, but which if undertaken by private persons, are not." What, at root, did you have in mind there?
Nixon: Well, what I, at root I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."
Now that's the kind of action I'm referring to. Of course in Lincoln's case it was the survival of the Union in wartime, it's the defense of the nation and, who knows, perhaps the survival of the nation.
References for a "reasonable" Nixon/Rice reality . . . .
- Condi Rice Pulls A Nixon: When the President Does It, That Means It is Not Illegal, By Cenk Uygur. Huffington Post. April 30, 2009
- Rice delivered OK to waterboarding. MSNBC News. April 24, 2009
- The OLC "torture memos": thoughts from a dissenter, By Philip Zelikow. Foreign Policy. April 21, 2009
- Report probes US custody deaths. British Broadcasting Company. February 21, 2006
- Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
- Nixon's Views on Presidential Power: Excerpts from an Interview with David Frost. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. May 19, 1977
- Justice Department Releases Bush Administration Torture Memos. Bradbury And Bybee Memos Are Released In Response To Long-Running ACLU Lawsuits. American Civil Liberties Union. April 16, 2001
- Torture Memorandums. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel. The New York Times.
- Condoleezza Rice on returning to campus, By Adam Gorlick. Stanford News Service. January 28, 2009
- Context of 'April 6, 1977: Nixon: 'If the President Does It, That Means It's Not Illegal.' History Commons.
- Real David Frost remembers 'fascinating' Nixon. Cable News Network. January 5, 2009
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 30, 2009 at 09:00 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Condoleezza Rice, Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D., Iraq War, Lawbreakers, Military Missions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Condoleezza Rice Sees Renewed Spirit. Surge! ©
Tonight, Condoleezza Rice clarified the terms, trials, and tribulations. Secretary Rice spoke of a transformative energy. She discussed the questionable "Civil War" in Iraq. The Secretary of State noted the President's continued "conviction" and "commitment." Miss Rice was a featured speaker on the News Hour. Margaret Warner interviewed the honorable Secretary, Condoleezza Rice. This esteemed Cabinet member, known for being "closer to the President" than the rest of his staff declared
There is no doubt that the president went into this phase with the same conviction and the same commitment that he's held throughout this war.Pray tell Miss Rice how secure are we as the violence escalates in Iraq and travels beyond Middle Eastern borders. Since the invasion of this Persian Gulf nation, terrorism has been on the rise. Occupying the country furthered the strife. Currently, throughout the world anti-American sentiments, thrive.And that is that the decision to go into Iraq was because it was in the interest and the security interests of the United States to do so, and that failure in Iraq would have grave circumstances, grave consequences for American interests, for the interests of our friends and allies in the region, and, indeed, for global security.
Globally, the United States is considered the enemy. Those in many countries, including our own, do not think we are truly working towards world peace. I ask, is this embattled endeavor in our best interest or in the best interest of our allies? I feel safe in saying, evidence shows we are not acting in the interest of Iraqis. Thousands of innocents are have lost their lives, limbs, and sight. More are maimed daily.
Miss Rice, you and your compassionate leader, our Commander-In-Chief say that we are moving "forward," the strategy has changed; we will not stay the course. Yet, you profess
So that's not going to change; that conviction, that commitment is not going to change.Open and closed to submissions that conflict with his steadfast dictums. According to an article in the Washington Post, the President "expressed little enthusiasm for the central ideas of a bipartisan commission." Mr. Bush let it be known he has no desire to reduce military forces in Iraq; nor does he intend to introduce new avenues for a diplomatic approach in this region. He remains steadfast. Mr. Bush will not speak to those that do not do as he deems correct.The president has been very open to all kinds of suggestions as to how to meet the commitment to help an Iraqi government be able to sustain itself and defend itself and govern.
Secretary Rice, you state
And I would just note: It's very interesting, when the Baker-Hamilton commission came out, that was the same conviction that that very illustrious group of Americans held, that we can't afford to have a failure in Iraq.Oh, Miss Rice I interpret the words of the Baker and Hamilton differently. Again, referring to a report published on December 7, 2006, in the Washington Post, I discern words of warning. Apparently, each of the co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group declared "success in Iraq would not be guaranteed even if all their 79 recommendations were adopted by Congress and the administration." The Baker-Hamilton Commission actually wrote in the final submission
The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Violence is increasing in scope and lethality. Attacks on U.S. forces and U.S. casualties continue at an alarming rate. The Iraqi people are suffering great hardship.It seems to me the Commission concludes that, thus far we have failed. Our actions have created a chaos that is unsurpassed and unimaginable. I agree; the Baker Hamilton report suggests there are other options that we may need to consider. However, it seems clear, Mr. Bush is not truly considering these; nor are you Secretary Rice,
The democratically-elected government that replaced Saddam Hussein is not adequately advancing the key issues of national reconciliation, providing basic security, or delivering essential services. Economic development is hampered. The current approach is not working. And the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing.The United States has committed staggering resources. Our country has lost almost 2,900 Americans; 21,000 more have been wounded. The United States has spent an estimated $400 billion in Iraq, and costs could rise well over $1 trillion. Many Americans are, understandably, dissatisfied.
Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward. No course of action in Iraq is guaranteed to stop a slide toward chaos.
The White House was yesterday considering an even deeper military commitment in Iraq, with a short-term deployment of 20,000 extra forces to Baghdad, a day after the US army chiefs warned that the force could break under the strain of the war.Surge is on the horizon.Meanwhile, the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, ruled out a diplomatic overture to Syria and Iran to enlist their support in stemming the chaos in Iraq.
The two developments reinforce reports that the White House is leaning towards a broad rejection of the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group for a withdrawal of US combat forces by early 2008, and for the opening of talks with Tehran and Damascus.
Miss Rice, as you sat calmly addressing the nation or at least the Nightly News Hour audience the new Secretary of Defense was laying out the strategy, presenting an image of moving forward. Since the Joint Chiefs of Staff and many high-ranking military officials oppose the Bush strategy of "surge,' justification needed to be found elsewhere. Support was sought and realized among the lowly service men and women. The Whitehouse turned to the humble, the hurt, those in need and asked, 'would you welcome some help?' .Solidiers tell Gates they want more troops.
Perhaps, misery loves company. There is lots of agony amongst our service persons.
I've noticed, Margaret [Warner of the News Hour] that, really, the Baker-Hamilton commission, but also since the elections, a renewed spirit by Americans, whatever their views of the decision to go to war, a renewed spirit in the Congress, among outside experts that the real issue is: How do we succeed under the circumstances?Miss Rice the spirit is not "renewed" in defense of the war; people here want US [the United Sates] out of Iraq. The citizens of Iraq wanted us to leave "their" country long ago.
The recent midterm elections gave us, and them a sense of hope! Our countrymen imagined that our message would be heard. We, worldwide, those outside of the White House, want no war! If there was a spirit to be renewed it was in the direction of peace, not war. Citizens of Iraq and America want no surge!
Secretary Rice, you mention "commitment" and "conviction" in relationship to Iraq. I see that you and the President have a particular dedication to mass murder and mayhem. People around the globe, including many among the military brass, have another agenda. If there is a "win" to be had, and most of us believe this war is a lost cause. We hope the solution will be focused on achieving a peaceful, diplomatic, and deliberate end to this tragic situation. We want no more protracted and poorly planned missions.
Sources for a renewed spirit or surge!
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 22, 2006 at 12:15 AM in 'Regime Change' , Bush 43 Administration, Condoleezza Rice, Iraq War, Military Missions, Spread Democracy, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Perseverance, The President, the Cabinet, and Me ©
~ Albert Einstein
I have been working on a project, for what feels like forever. I am attempting to expand my Hyper Text Markup Language [html] horizons. I am working to broaden my comprehension of Cascading Style Sheets. Though I have heard many say, learning to create a wed page is easy, as I broached the construction, I did as I do, I freaked. When stretching beyond my own limits I often feel paralyzed. Each time I begin a novel endeavor I quietly and subtly panic. I live in fear though few would ever know this.
I suspect we all do. When the common utterance is stated, “We are all our own worst critic,” we substantiate that humans are insecure. They [we, I] question their achievements and their limitations. They [we, I] ask are they [we, I] worthy, wonderful, or weak.
I feel feeble, frail, and fragile as I begin to challenge my ego strength or lack thereof. I know not whether I fear failure or fear the light. In exploring this venture, I chose not to start from scratch. I knew that would be too threatening for me. I began with a scripted shell. Still, I shuttered to think, what of the learning curve. Apprehension welled up in me. I knew I would work through it; I consistently do. I am known to persevere. I am disciplined, diligent, and thorough, or so many tell me. Thus, I am scripting in my sleep and staying up into the wee hours of the morning.
As I am coming closer to resolving much of what has been overwhelming to me, I thought of how persistence is a good trait. Then my mind shifted to the topic of stubbornness; synonyms for which are obstinacy, inflexibility, and obduracy. I thought of our current Administration and the comparisons overwhelmed me. They have their mission and I have mine. President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declare, “We must stay the course!” Reluctantly, I reflect, might I be similar to such a shrewd and crude bunch?
I believe in some ways the essence of being human is fundamentally equivalent; however there are nuances that differ. diligence is an admirable trait. Nevertheless, when our determination causes our defeat, people often become defensive. Defensiveness is the human means for hiding deep-seated trepidation. The more protective we are of our philosophies and practices, the more we demonstrate our internal strife. Witness "W." and his whiney Cabinet cronies.
In my own desire to “succeed,” I do not stay singularly focused. I do not seek affirmation from those that agree with me. I search for the naysayer, those that freely offer constructive criticism. I crave advice, and wisdom. I look for those that technically know nothing of the world in which I live and those that more fully embrace the paradigm. I want to hear from those that experience reality in a manner that varies from my own. I realize that my own defensiveness will teach me nothing.
In my yearning to pursue, persevere, and persist, I acknowledge that I must ponder. I must travel beyond what I know or believe. Decisions cannot be set if I am to proceed, progress, and ultimately prevail.
Sadly, I think too often humans dig in their heels. They wish to be on terra firma. I am not alone in my fear. Many believe that they dread the darkness; though that is the space, they are familiar with. People typically know drama, trauma, and chaos. They continually create it. Most individuals find comfort in what they know. Thus, they defend to the death their right to believe as they do. They are confident in their commitment and conclusions.
I, on the other hand, accept that I comprehend nothing with certainty. With each passing day, I am more aware that life is a series of lessons and I learn ever so slowly. I am baffled by my fascination with light. I have craved its warmth since I was a very young child. Yet, I fear it. Sunlight leaves me feeling settled. However, it is the light within that blinds me!
"Our Greatest Fear"
Marianne Williamson from her book "A Return to Love"
It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us;
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small does not serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other
People won't feel insecure around you.
We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.
It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone.
And as we let our own light shine.
We unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear,
Our presence automatically liberates others.
Ponder and Persevere . . .
• Bush: Stay the course on terror war. Cable News Network News. Thursday, May 6, 2004
• President Outlines Strategy for Victory in Iraq. Office of the Press Secretary. November 30, 2005
• Interview of the Vice President by John King, CNN . Office of the Vice President. June 22, 2006
• Cheney: Iraq pullout would 'validate and encourage the terrorists. Cable News Network News. Thursday, June 22, 2006
• Stay What Course?, By Gene Healy and Justin Logan. Cato Institute. November 4, 2005
• Rice won't rule out U.S. troops in Iraq in 10 years, By Mikhail Metzel. Associated Press. CNN News. October 26, 2005
• Rumsfeld: Criticism 'goes with territory'. By Frank Sesno. Cable News Network News. September 30, 2006
• "Our Greatest Fear" Marianne Williamson from her book "A Return to Love"
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 1, 2006 at 02:20 PM in Being, Becoming, Condoleezza Rice, Desire to Learn, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Failure, Human Nature, Humans, Self-Destructive, Life, A Forward Motion, Light. Darkness., Looking at Life, Loss of Life, Marianne Williamson, Nature or Nurture, Persevere. Stubborn?, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Success. Failure. | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Bush. Rice. The “Root Causes” of War. ©
America allowed its friend and ally Israel to pummel the Lebanese countryside. Thus far, 700,000 people have been displaced within Lebanon. Women and children are killed day after day; and all Bush can say is “Hezbollah is to blame.” Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and had they not done so Lebanon and Israel would be at peace, or so is the world according to the Shrub.
Hezbollah has fired Katyusha rockets daily. On some days, hundred sprinkle Israeli territories. As weeks turn into a month, these missiles come closer to the capital. These projectiles are penetrating more deeply into the nation state of Israel. There are many injuries. However, the fight must continue, according to Israeli officials. “We must win.”
Numerous persons worldwide are disturbed. When will this crisis end? Will it ever?
The people of this republic clamor; they ask their President to talk to the warring nations. Americans insist; we must step in. The requests fall on deaf ears. Days pass and the public begs; they pray, “Please Mr. Bush speak with the Israelis. Send Condie in. She will save the day.” Americans want the Administration to meet with the Lebanese. Negotiate with Hezbollah. Work with other nations to reach an accord. Do something. The Emperor delays.
Mr. Bush, with the blessings of his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, continues to explain, the time will come. For now, “Israel has the right to defend herself.”
However, ultimately, after all the aggression and all the assertions Bush and his Bunch did enter the fray. Diplomatic talks did begin. They progress slowly. However, days ago an announcement was made; an agreement had been reached.
This morning a press conference was held. King George II and the lovely Miss Rice met with journalists. They made a statement and took questions.
Secretary Rice and diplomats from other countries are developing United Nations resolutions to bring about a cessation of hostilities and establish a foundation for lasting peace.The first resolution, which the Security Council is now considering, calls for a stop of all hostilities. Under its terms, Hezbollah will be required to immediately stop all attacks; Israel will be required to immediately stop all offensive military operations.
The President and his pride are pleased; yet, those concerned are not. Some ask, “Why does the text of the resolution state “all hostilities” must stop, and then clarify, Hezbollah is required to stop all attacks; Israel need only end offensive operations. “ Why is there a cessation and no ceasefire?
Bush explains, a resolution is not requested or required because “root causes” must be addressed. We are reminded of the statement Secretary Rice made weeks ago, “A ceasefire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo”.
A second resolution, which the Security Council will begin working on as soon as possible, will help establish a sustainable and enduring cease-fire.Perchance, that armistice will address the “root causes.”
Dear reader, you might note that I referred to “root causes” twice within a given paragraph. I am being redundant, perhaps, to make a point. I know not. I only understand that the term must be reiterated over and over, and over again. At least that is my assumption, for I hear the President and his persuasive Secretary of State using the same phrase repetitively. I began to count the number of usages in today’s speech and then again, within answer; however, I lost count early on.
Just before the meeting began, I was watching an interview with Former Senate Majority Leader, also Mideast Envoy for the Clinton administration, George Mitchell. Soledad O’Brien of Cable News Network and the esteemed Mr. Mitchell were discussing the Middle East situation and possible solutions.
During this dialogue, Ms. O’Brien asked, “If you were advising this president, what would you tell him to do to solve this crisis now?”
Former Senator Mitchell replied,
Well, the administration was very slow to get involved. It has concentrated all of its effort, resources, and attention on Iraq over the past few years, and as a result, the central concern, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, really hasn't had the attention it deserves. But now after a slow start, even in the past few weeks, they're into it. And I think what they've got to do is persevere and make it clear that they're going to stay with this until it's resolved.Ms. O’Brien interjects, inquiring, “Direct negotiations, you mean, with the U.S.?”The problem has been that, other than Iraq, the administration's involvement, particularly in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, has been episodic, irregular -- come in one day, go out next week. I think they have to say -- the president has to make clear that they're determined to stay with this and get an ultimate resolution.
The second point is -- I simply don't agree with Secretary Rice's formulation that here's our resolution, if you're not for it, you're not for peace. That's the attitude that I think has reduced American credibility around the world. That we've presented this, we know what is best, and if you don't agree with us, you're not a good person. That's not the approach that they should be taking. It ought to be, here's an effort, let's all sit down and talk together. Let's listen to the concerns of people. Let's try to work them out. In the end, you may not be able to get everybody on board, but I think that's a better approach. ?
And the third thing is, this isn't going to be resolved in any final way until Syria is involved. This is on Syria's border. They're exposed to...
The former Middle East Envoy replies,
We ought to be talking to them. And I would be amazed if there were not indirect negotiations. To say they're bad people, we won't talk to them, has the benefit of clarity and it's easily understood. But when you want someone to do something, it's hard to get them to do it if you won't talk to them.Thus we have it, the root cause stated clearly. I think the “root cause” is not Hezbollah; nor would I claim that it is Israel, or Lebanon. For me, the “root cause” for wars worldwide, be they in the Middle East or elsewhere is the same. It is the babyish Bush Bunch attitude, “You are either with us or against us.” Play by our rules or you cannot play at all. Tantrums, what tantrums, I just refuse to talk to you until . . . Welcome to the world of Bush; battles are blazing. Rome is on fire and Nero plays the fiddle, foolishly.
Reference the Root Causes for the Resolution . . .
• Protesters Want End To Battering Of Lebanon, By Lynne Tuohy. The Hartford Courant. August 6, 2006
• American and British inaction will turn a crisis into a catastrophe. Sunday Herald. July 23, 2006
• President's Radio Address. Office of the Press Secretary. July 22, 2006
• Bush Blames Hezbollah, Syria for Mideast Violence; WTO Talks Break Down, Associated Press. Sunday, July 16, 2006
• Lebanon: Hezbollah bombs deeper into Israel. Gleaner Company. Thursday, August 3, 2006
• Bush: 'Israel Has Right to Defend Itself'. By Voice of America News. July 13, 2006
• President Bush and Secretary of State Rice Discuss the Middle East Crisis. Office of the Press Secretary. August 7, 2006
• Transcript: Bush, Rice news conference. Seattle Post. Monday, August 7, 2006
• PDF Transcript: Bush, Rice news conference. Seattle Post. Monday, August 7, 2006
• Bush: Mideast violence must stop, CNN News. Aired August 7, 2006
• American Morning. Transcripts. U.N. Mideast Resolution. CNN News. Aired August 7, 2006
• Rice sees Mideast progress among the bombs. CNN News. Thursday, August 3, 2006
• Rice: Cease-fire won't help, By Shmuel Rosner. Haaretz.
• Special Briefing on Travel to the Middle East and Europe. Secretary Condoleezza Rice. Washington, DC. U.S. State Department. July 21, 2006
• Lebanon's objections delay UN Council Mideast vote. Reuters. August 7, 2006
• The Root Cause Of War In The Middle East, By Claude Salhani. United Press International. July 31, 2006
• What Are the Root Causes, Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice? Opinion: Am Johal. Scoop Independent News. Thursday, 27 July 2006
• What Are the Root Causes, Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice? By Am Johal. The Electronic Intifada. July 26, 2006
• Village attack stirs outrage; tactics isolate Israel, U.S., By Susan Page, Andrea Stone and Jeffrey Stinson, USA Today. July 31, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 7, 2006 at 06:53 PM in Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, Bush Press Conference, Condoleezza Rice, Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D., Current Affairs, Failure, George Mitchell, Senator, Mideast Envoy, Israel and Lebanon, Jews, Hezbollah, Middle East Resolution, Short-term Solutions, United Nations Security Council , Violence, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, “Root Causes”, “You are either with us or against us” | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Iraq, Israel, Lebanon; Trees of Life in a Wilderness of War. ©
Another quiet dissenter enters the fray. She says, “This virus has existed for centuries.” No one can change what is and has always been. A group gathers and grows. They all argue amongst themselves. Finally, there is a loud explosion, or was it an implosion. The tree and all those surrounding it are engulfed in flames. Within minutes, there is silence. This world exists no more.
For well over a week now I have witnessed the whirlwind of discussions, disagreements, and dialogues pertaining to rhetoric, religion, and rage. People are discussing the crisis in Lebanon and Israel.
Persons pose the prospect; President Bush is responsible, culpable, and guilty of causing another war. No, it is Hamas, Hezbollah, the Israelis, or the Zionists that are liable. Perchance, the boy next door started this newer war in the Middle East. After all, he is Lebanese, or is he from Syria. Nevertheless, he looks suspicious.
Historical facts flitter about. Feelings flourish and of course, the seemingly practical solutions prosper, or at least people speak of these. Musings about methods of diplomacy mysteriously rise and fall. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice is waiting for the “appropriate time” to mediate international relations
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she will travel to the Middle East to help with peace efforts "when it is appropriate and necessary.” A day earlier, a State Department spokesman said Rice would be traveling to the Middle East for talks, but didn't specify a timeframe or location for the trip.
Emperor Bush has better things to do. He need not be bothered with details or even Presidential acts. King George II knows who is to blame and how to stop all this sh)(*&. On an open microphone the Bushman said,
“See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this (expletive) and it's over.”Earlier, at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he stated his feeling. These were intended for public consumption, “Israel has a right to defend herself; every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life.”
Before the current conflict, Cheney was proud to chime in on Mid-Eastern affairs.
If the leaders of Hamas desire the help of America and the international community to build an independent, prosperous Palestinian state, then the way forward is very clear. The Palestinian government must recognize Israel's right to exist. (Applause.) And Hamas must renounce terror and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. (Applause.) One thing is certain: The United States will not be a party to the establishment of a Palestinian state that sponsors terror and violence. (Applause.)
Meanwhile, the world is coming apart [the tree is about to implode.] War is in the wind; it is on the airwaves, and within the hearts, minds, souls, and bodies of many a man and woman. Yet, it is not here, in America, now. The combat and brutality exists only in lands far from our home.
Americans sit safely, smugly, and snugly in their quaint little homes. They cuddle up to their computers, or televisions sets. They contemplate the causes and effects of battles in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. United States citizens posture and postulate, they know what is occurring and why. Rarely do they consider that the facts are just fancy. They are nice, entertaining, and yes, even interesting. I love being informed, even if only from a distance. Actually, in this situation, I rather my awareness be distal. For I cannot truly imagine the fear, I might feel if bombs were blasting within a few feet of my home. I wonder during my waking and “restful” hours.
Americans proclaim they care; yet, they do little to effectuate true change. We can accept and acknowledge what is and what was. We can advance academic scholarship and all this is essential but not enough is it? The wars rage on, the dead and maimed pile up.
I am forever told I am an idealist for I do believe war is not an option; for me, it is never necessary. Some perceive me to be a fatalist, for I fear further doom. I am certain Condi would accuse me of this. Secretary of State Rice declared, “It doesn’t help to speculate on kind of apocalyptic scenarios,” though I do not believe that I am predicting an unprecedented future. I am asking that we assess ourselves before we begin to think that we can “improve” the world for others.
I will again pose what most believe is impossible. We as a society must look within. We must teach our children and ourselves to be true to our beliefs. We must not bellow and then belie our words in our next breath. Until we walk our talk and work towards peace in our homes, on our streets, in our communities, and within our own country we will not be trusted. Our hypocritical stance will continue to create conflict. We must question our human habits.
I have had no time to remake the world
As I realized in my own life, [reference the Mountain Dew Story] and have since shared with others, what we believe is our nature, is actually what was nurtured as we grew. Many of us have learned to be combative, competitive, and calculating in our personal lives. None of these characteristics promote peace, tranquility, or calm. What we do in our personal lives is reflected and projected in our professional existence. Human beings are profoundly consistent in both the best and the worst ways.
If you choose not to look at yourself, then look at your neighbor, your President, Prime Minister, or perhaps your parent.
Study their relationships at home or abroad. Contemplate what they create as members of a Board or a brood. Ponder what they present and how consistent they are. If a President, Prime Minister, or a parent is corrupt and combative in one position, they will be so in another. We are who we are, wherever we are; however, we can be otherwise, if we choose. For now, most are busy assessing others, telling them they need to change.
Most are contemplating the specifics, the particulars, and the details of war. They do this all day. Dissecting the issues within the Middle East has become a daily doing. Some blog what they believe. Journalists write what they think is correct. Pundits pronounce this or that truth, as do politicos. We twirl and whirl ourselves into a tizzy. Flame wars ignite throughout this country. These are the verbal versions of physical strife; they are as hand-to-hand combat. Americans are engaged in a war of words as they ask for peace. They revel in conflict as they speak of a desire for calm.
The bickering and bantering continue as individuals strongly stress their idea of the perfect solution. Yet, little changes. I believe, until we work on ourselves from within and teach through our example, nothing will. The cycle will continue, just as it has for centuries!
The pursuit of peace and progress, with its trials and its errors, its successes and its setbacks,
can never be relaxed and never abandoned.
The pursuit of peace cannot be achieved through external means. It is an internal truth. If you talk of peace; yet, you do not walk in peace, then you are denying your truth. You are pretending to be what you profess. The world will reflect what is within you; this is what you will teach for it is what you believe.
I understand that habits are a challenge to change; however, until we grow from within, all the world will stay the same, or so I believe. We will continue to see what we saw, for our perception is our perspective. If our viewpoint accepts, allows, and advances violence, then violence will be our reality. If we alter our interpretation of what it is that we see, then what we see will no longer be what it once was. As we evolve, so too do our thoughts.
I can look at a tree and see beauty or I can envision the bugs buried within the bark. As I gaze out my window and notice the bend of the tree, I can blame the wind, or I can appreciate that the arch and arbor the leaves create.
But rather by the way, I view them.
What I believe, I will conceive. I believe the tree is tremendous. It s branches are abundant; all grow separately; yet they are still connected. Vegetation is as civilization itself. There is much splendor and majesty. There is also the contrast. Some will love and others will war. A few will speak of calm; more will cultivate chaos. There are infinite reasons for every action and reaction. Compassion and conflict are complex. Even indifference holds many intricacies.
Nevertheless, I, as do we all, choose whether I will contribute to one characteristic or another. I need not find reasons for combat. I need not find grounds for disputes. Explaining the roots of all evil will eliminate none. If I am to work towards peace, I must be peaceful in my approach to life and to people. If I differentiate between those that I admire and those that rub me the wrong way, then I am not truly tranquil. I can contemplate corruption and controversy. I can clash with those whose facts differ from my own or I can choose otherwise.
As I gaze upon the tree and I observe serenity. It is harmony that I wish to emulate and encourage.
May peace be with you and I. May we walk the path of wisdom together. May we never war. Please let us live and let live. If you or I want to stop this war or that one, then I think we must end the battles we create in our own world.
He who overcomes others is strong; he who overcomes himself is mighty.
References for those mired in details, obviously myself among these . . .
• Middle East News Tracker, Updated regularly with news on the Israel-Hezbollah-Lebanon crisis. Wall Street Journal. July 19, 2006
• Opportunist Killers, By Father Jonathan Morris. Fox News. July 18, 2006
• War Takes Lebanon Back to Civil War Days,By Donna Abu-Nasr. The Associated Press. Washington Post. Monday, July 17, 2006
• Bush, Putin Disagree Over Call for Mideast Cease-Fire, By Richard Keil. Bloomberg. July 15, 2006
• Don't Blame Bush, The war in Lebanon isn't his fault,By Jacob Weisberg. Slate. Wednesday, July 19, 2006
• Caught in the crossfire of blame, By Danny Katz. The Age. Fairfax Digital. July 20, 2006
• Updated report on the war in Lebanon - Day 7, Ya Libnan. Tuesday, July, 18, 2006
• All-out war feared as Beirut, Haifa hit. Almost 60 killed in two days of fighting. By Mitch Potter. Toronto Star Newspapers . July 14, 2006
• Israel pounds Lebanon, G8 leaders blame Hizbollah, By Lin Noueihed. Reuters. July 17, 2006
• Bush blames Syria, Iran for violence, 2 nations called the 'root causes'. By Finlay Lewis. Copley News Service. July 18, 2006
• Rice: Urges restraint from all sides as Mideast explodes, Office of the Press Secretary. Chicago Sun Times. July 16, 2006
• Rice, Abulgheit differ on timing of ceasefire between Hizbollah, Israel. Kuwait News Agency. July 20, 2006
• Condoleezza Rice: Press Briefing: Situation in the Middle East U.S. Department of State. Noticias.info
• Transcript: Vice President Cheney Speaks to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference. Office of the White House Press Secretary. Washington Post. Tuesday, March 7, 2006
• Cheney: no US help for PA unless Hamas renounces terror By Associated Press. Israelinsider. March 8, 2006
• War in the Wind, Blast Buries New York City Building © By Betsy L. Angert. Be-Think. July 10, 2006
• Drawing In, Lashing Out, Israelis want to turn inward, but occupational hazards -- and a new crisis in the territories -- keep them from doing so, By Jo-Ann Mort. The American Prospect. July 10, 2006
• Bush defends Israel’s attacks in Lebanon, By Associated Press. MSNBC. July 13, 2006
• Animal House Summit; [Op-Ed] By Maureen Dowd. New York Times July 19, 2006
• A Rare Unscripted Moment, Bush fires off some pleasantries -- and a four-letter word about Hezbollah, By James Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times. July 18, 2006
• Childhood Obesity. Adult On-Set Diabetes. Osteoporosis. Soda © By Betsy L. Angert. Be-Think. July 10, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 19, 2006 at 07:50 PM in Brutality, Self-Defense, Bush 43 Administration, Change the World [Within], Communities and Communication , Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Condoleezza Rice, Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D., Current Affairs, Evolution [Emotional, Physical, Spiritual], Global Village, Humans, Self-Destructive, Iraq War, Looking at Life, Loss of Life, Military Missions, Philosophy, Policy, Politics, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Short-term Solutions, Teach The Children, Verbal Combat, Violence, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, Why War?, “War; Not an Option” | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
War in the Wind, Blast Buries New York City Building ©
WABC News. Photograph July 10, 2006.
War is in the air; it blows with the wind. Acts of violence travel. They cannot be isolated or contained to lands far from our shores. If we accept war anywhere, we consent to it here. Warfare is not a concept; it is concrete. Combat comes easily to the minds of men or women in conflict. Witness today, yesterday, and everyday. We as a nation are at war. While the struggle is far from our shores, it looms large in our collective psyche.
Our leaders reassure us, and on the surface, Americans accept the façade they present. [Some] Americans love when Bush bellows and Cheney chants, “We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home.” Americans applaud this non-sequitur logic. They surmise war can be isolated and they are insulated. In 2004, that was the battle cry. There were no terrorist attacks on American shores since September 11, 2001. Therefore, the theory was proposed, President Bush and his hawkish policies protected us. Many accepted this as true.
They then cast their ballots for this magnificent man. They gave the Bush, Cheney team their mandate, or so that is how the Administration framed it. Again, and again the Emperor exclaimed he had capital to spend and he spent it. Thus, we have the cost of war.
Causalities abound; the numbers are climbing. Iraqi civilians are raped, maimed, murdered; yet, they do not count. They are merely collateral damage. Citizens of the United States remain safe, sane, or so it appears. Thus, we support our President and allow him to continue in office.
However, in our heart-of-hearts, we know; America is not out of harm's way. We recognize war is in the wind. When a building explodes or implodes in New York City, we all panic with reason. Citizens understand what they never wish to express. As long as we accept war is an option, we are admitting that it can and will touch us, just as it affects our “enemies.” No one is sheltered from the scars combat causes.
King George II cannot protect and defend America from farther feuds; nor can Cheney or Rumsfeld. These lovelies created what comes closer. With thanks to our beloved President and his Cabinet, the possibility of war within the United States is real.
For now, the prospect settles only in the recesses of our minds, and on drawing boards elsewhere. Still, we all know the threat is valid. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice can rant and rage about States rights; yet, she too has no power to guard against the aggression she helped to promote.
Once the notion is placed on the table, the tremors will be felt throughout the globe. No man is an island; nor can any of us ever be insulated or isolated.
After receiving many replies to this treatise, I realized that what might be so obvious to me, the writer, is not apparent, to many a dear reader. Perchance I was not clear in my communication.
Possibly some are so offended by this Administration and the ample accusations; terrorists are everywhere, they missed my message. Those persons, and admittedly, typically I am among these, distrust Bush and the Bunch so much, that they see any talk of terrorism as a means for distracting Americans from the real issues.
There are those that awoke hours after the initial blasts. They already read and heard the theories. These individuals knew the explosion was likely a suicide attempt. Therefore, these bookworms thought I was telling tales. I was stirring the National Security soup of the day. For these persons, I was making an issue of what was nothing more than a “normal” event in the course of any day.
Numerous persons are concerned even consumed with an exit strategy. They want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. An event in a single day is not their focus. These individuals might not question the entrance into war per se. They struggle with the constant loss this conflict brings. They may think stuff happens; hostilities occur, related to Iraq or not.
I am repeatedly reminded, that as a whole, most people think war is an option, the one of last resort; however, the alternative is often considered acceptable.
Conceivably, that may be the challenge. When I wrote this treatise, I was speaking of my truth. For me, “War is not an option, not now or ever!” I do not think terrorism is a reason for combat. I believe slavery, genocide, homicide, rape, and racism were not the causes of wars in the past. Economic power and the desire for supremacy are, in my mind, the rationale behind battles and bickering.
For me, the blast was a reminder of where we have been. It is where we still are. On this planet, war is in the wind! It has been for centuries.
For those that rose hours after investigations began, they could again sink into the comfort of complacency. For the many that bash-Bush, more power to you. I was not denying the validity of your beliefs. I share these. My only question was and is, why is war an option, ever? I believe that if it is in the wind in the East, it will be in the air traveling westward.
We can sit in the comfort of our cushy chairs. We can profess how terrible the terrorist are or how awful the insurgent Bush is. However, as long as we, Americans, allow for and accept war as an option, on our shores or on those aboard, then we can never know with certainty where the next strike will hit. I think this is why those on the streets at the time of the blast were shaken.
When I penned this missive, I was speaking to the stress exhibited by those there, near the building in New York City. I was also addressing my own eternal anxiety. Why is violent behavior ever an option? Even now, believing the cause of the blast was an attempted suicide does not ease my mind. Why do we aggressively strike out and hurt others or ourselves?
I hope this communiqué helps to clarify my intent. Perhaps, those that felt confused will re-visit the message.
Please Peruse the Possibilities When War is in the Wind.
• Four-Story Building Collapses on East Side of Manhattan, New York Times. The Associated Press. July 10, 2006
• New York building collapses, burns, CNN News. July 10, 2006
• At least 11 injured in Manhattan building collapse, By Wil Cruz, Lauren Johnston and Chick Benett. Newsday.com. July 10, 2006
• UPDATE 2-Building collapses in New York City, Reuters. July 10, 2006. 9:59am ET
• President Bush Discusses Progress in the War on Terror July 12, 2004
• Policies in Focus. National Security Strategy, The White House.
• Cost of War.
• Causalities
• Iraq Body Count.
• Bush has a big agenda for 2005, By David Gregory, Chief White House correspondent. NBC News. December 30, 2004
• President Holds Press Conference. "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." November 4, 2004
• Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says, CNN News. Monday, June 20, 2005
• Iraq: Collateral damage, By Ashok Mitra. Rediff.com India Limited. March 25, 2003
• Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11. Book Says President Called Secrecy Vital. By William Hamilton. Washington Post. Saturday, April 17, 2004
• How Many Dead Iraqis? Guessing about collateral damage. By Fred Kaplan. Slate.Tuesday, February 25, 2003
• Strictly Confidential. Likely Humanitarian Scenarios. United Nations Document. December 10, 2002
• Collateral Damage or Civilian Massacre in Haditha?, By Tim McGirk, Baghdad. Time Magazine. March 19, 2006, PDF version
• The Promise of Democratic Peace, Why Promoting Freedom Is the Only Realistic Path to Security. By Condoleezza Rice. The Washington Post. Sunday, December 11, 2005
• Remarks at the American University in Cairo, By Secretary Condoleezza. Rice Cairo, Egypt. June 20, 2005
"America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, to attain their own freedom, and to make their own way."
• The Iran Plans,
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? By Seymour M. Hersh. The New Yorker. April 17, 2006
• North Korea missles rattle European markets, El Financiero en línea. July 5, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 10, 2006 at 11:48 AM in Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, Condoleezza Rice, Current Affairs, Global Village, Iraq War, Loss of Life, Military Missions, National Security Strategy for the USA, Philosophy, Policy, President Protects America , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Terrorism, Violence, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War, The Last Option, “War; Not an Option” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
FORBES: THE WORLD’S MOST POWERFUL WOMEN, CONDOLEEZZA RICE ©
Forbes declares Condoleezza Rice is the “Worlds Most Powerful Woman.” Many regard Secretary of State Rice as “number one.” Miss Rice stands at the side of the man that some say, is the “most powerful man in the world,” President George W. Bush. She is the strength that King George II relies on. It is said, during her first four years in the Bush Junior Whitehouse Miss Rice was both a protégé and mentor to President of the United States. There are those that believe this relationship continues.
George W. and Condie chat easily; they seem to agree on everything. Publicly they have no differences. Some say “sports” is there only bone of contention; at times she may support one team and he another. Politically, it seems Miss Rice and the President share views, implicitly.
During the President’s first term, Condoleezza Rice served as National Security Advisor. In this position, Condie guided King George II. She assisted him, helping him to understand foreign policy and security issues. Miss Rice is decisive, an authority, and she delegates well. Then, Security Advisor Rice offered her views; she shared her expertise, and assisted a novice leader.
As a friend and fellow, Condoleezza Rice is invaluable. The lovely and loyal advisor helped Baby Bush respond to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Declaring war on terrorism was was thought to be her dictum. Miss Rice played a powerful role in drafting many Presidential plots. The war on Iraq was, in large part, influenced by her wisdom.
Faulty intelligence passed from Condie to George. Papers suggesting Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” and that these were hidden throughout Iraq were delivered to Miss Rice before the President ever saw them. Then, National Security Advisor Rice authenticated the information. She presented “the facts” to the President as truth. GW trusted her counsel, as he always had. Mr. Bush had no reason to doubt the intellect that he long relied on.
King George II understood that the senior King, Daddy George, had faith in the savoir-faire of the elegant Miss Rice. Papa Bush first took note of the scholar when she served as provost at Stanford University. President George Herbert Walker Bush asked Condie to serve as Director of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council. Ultimately, he promoted her to Senior Director. She served the President well. Bush senior acknowledged this; the then President asked Condie to serve as his Special Assistant. She advised George Herbert on National Security Affairs. In 1986, Miss Rice was again asked to represent the United States; she became Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The woman is quite impressive! Her record is remarkable! This author writes this last sentence with a smile, ahem.
Some say, it was Daddy that encouraged the relationship between Baby Bush and the stately Miss Rice. Others believe that King George II and Condie merely gravitated to each other. They need each other; a student needs a teacher and an educator needs her/his pupil. At times it is difficult to discern the roles. They may be interchangeable. The most powerful man and the most powerful woman are, often, indistinguishable.
However, we can be certain they support each other whole-heartedly. When President Bush appointed Miss Rice to the position of Secretary of State he spoke of this saying, "During the last four years I've relied on her counsel, benefited from her great experience and appreciated her sound and steady judgment. And now I'm honored that she's agreed to serve in my Cabinet."
Power serves the powerful, and now we see it on the pages of Forbes. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice serves the most powerful man in the world and she is declared the “most powerful woman in the world.” I am reminded, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely!”
Please read a Frontline exposé, Paths to Power. This document offers an interesting discussion. “The first Bush administration foreshadows many aspects of the Bush administration 12 years later.” Condie is among the featured players.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 29, 2005 at 02:00 PM in Condoleezza Rice, Women | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
CONDOLEEZZA RICE SAYS STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR THE TERRORISTS ©
This is a day of daft. Earlier, I received and posted an electronic mail, that for me was an enigma. I wondered; would I want to publish this passionate plea, one filled with party line propaganda. I struggled with the idea. This epistle stressed a thought that I disdain. “I do not care” disturbs me. Finally, I resigned myself. I decided it is important to share what is truth for many Americans. I surmise if we do not recognize what is within the minds of others, we know little. Therefore, I offered a glimpse into the mind of a “Compassionate Conservative.” You may wish to read, SCARY! SONG OF COMPASSION? FROM CONSERVATIVE PAMELA FOSTER ©
Then I turned on the television. I was looking forward to my daily dose of News Hour viewing. Journalist Jim Lehrer was interviewing Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. I listened intently, always wishing to understand the views of this administration, and then it happened. The Whitehouse, through Miss Rice, is promoting a stance similar to the scary one of Pamela Foster. The email that I read earlier is now, virtually, United States policy.
The words of Secretary of State Rice will, henceforth, be pushed on the people, “When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists? No one is making them do it [engage in violent behaviors]. They're doing it because they want to create chaos and to undermine our way to life.”
My thought is this; I recognize the administration rejects science. Scientists were not included in the energy commission panel. They do not advise on issues relating to the environment. Nonetheless, I request that physicists be placed in the State Department. America might benefit from the wisdom of cause and effect. Remember Newton’s Third Law of Motion, “For every action, there is an equal and opposing reaction.”
Perhaps you prefer the principles of String Theory, “There is no such thing as a pure vacuum in space. Depending upon which interrelated properties of the basic fabric that one attempts to define, the distinctions are only arbitrary and illusionary.”
I offered a portion of the interview for your reading. You may read the rest at NEWSMAKER: CONDOLEEZZA RICE, July 28, 2005
JIM LEHRER: What about the additional element here that, increasingly, terrorism experts and Muslim experts are saying that the combination of Iraq and other foreign policy decisions by the United States are actually creating more terrorists every day than they are eliminating them.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists? The terrorists on Sept. 11 attacked the United States. We weren't in Iraq. We weren't even in Afghanistan on Sept. 11.
They have attacked in places that had no forces in either place. They've attacked all over the world. They've attacked in Morocco and in Bali and in Egypt and in London and in Madrid.
When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists and saying that somebody is making them do it? No, these are simply evil people who want to kill. And they want to kill in the name of a perverted ideology that really is not Islam, but they somehow want to claim that mantle to say that this is about some kind of grievance. This isn't about some kind of grievance. This is an effort to destroy, rather than to build.
And until everybody in the world calls it by name -- the evil that it is -- stops making excuses for them, then I think we're going to have a problem. And I hope that after the bombings of innocent people in London, innocent people at Sharm el-Sheikh, innocent children in Iraq, that people will call this by name and stop making excuses for these people.
No one is making them do it. They're doing it because they want to create chaos and to undermine our way to life.
Dear Reader . . . I shared my thoughts. Please feel free to offer yours. I invite you to stimulate discussion, advance understanding, to rant, rage, or agree with the esteemed Miss Rice. I look forward to your contribution.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 28, 2005 at 11:45 PM in Condoleezza Rice, Policy, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
BOLTON. CONDIE, WILL THE OBSTRUCTIONIST BE THE VICTOR? ©
From the beginning, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has pushed for the passage. She wanted John R. Bolton to reign supreme at the United Nations. Secretary Rice has her reasons; she does not want Mr. Bolton to serve in the position that he covets, Deputy Secretary of State. In that post, he would be too close to her.
In her former position as National Security Advisor, Miss Rice experienced the rancor of John Bolton. She knows that she does not want an intimate working relationship with a man such as he. She acknowledges that others feel the same. Nonetheless, she is loyal to her President. She understands his position. Mr. Bolton helped the President get into office in 2000 and the Administration feels a need to return the favor. Rice can accept this. Yet, she wants to ensure that while John Bolton is repaid, and reimbursed well, it will not affect her directly.
Therefore, the Secretary of State does all that she can to ensure his appointment. She routinely calls Senators; she reassures them. Miss Rice is known to have said, “We think that we can control him. If he strays from the reservation, he's out.”
Secretary Rice has made promises. During the course of the Bolton, hearings Senator Joseph Biden [Democrat-Delaware], member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, requested the full Bolton record. Biden, said a full accounting of Bolton’s service is necessary; it will facilitate the approval process. Bolton once served as Under-Secretary of State, Arms Control and International Security. Therefore, the appeal was made to the State Department. Condoleezza Rice now heads this office.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured the senator, the Department would gladly provide the Bolton papers. Miss Rice promised to cooperate. She stated, "We have every desire to have the committee have the information that it needs.” Condie declared, the State Department will respond "as rapidly as possible.” Yet, they have not. They have not produced the documents requested. While Condie acknowledges her pledge, she asserts that she did not say when the documents would be delivered and so we wait. The Senate waits, the nation waits, and John Bolton’s appointment moves on, though slowly.
It is hindered. The Foreign Relations Committee sent the nomination on to the full Senate without a recommendation. Still the papers did not come. Miss Rice was and is not forthcoming. She offers no reasons for the delay.
The vote is again postponed. For now, we are standing still, some holding their breath. One wonders, will Secretary Rice get her way, will the President get his.
Ultimately, might Mr. Bush dare to do as he does? President Bush is authorized to appoint Mr. Bolton to the position of United Nations Representative temporarily. If appointed, Bolton would serve for one full year. The possibly is frightening, though a reality. Citizens and Senators alike ask, with a history of unilateral actions, will the President attack aggressively, this time striking at the Senate and the United Nations? Will we all feel the blows?
Please visit the thoughts of Steve Soto, The Left Coaster, Is Bush Forcing A Nuclear Option On Bolton?
Nico, at ThinkProgress.org shares an interesting perspective on the Bolton appointment.
Sen. Roberts: Bolton Recess Appointment Would ‘Weaken the United States’
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on June 21, 2005 at 06:00 PM in Bolton Battle, Condoleezza Rice | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
CONDOLEEZZA RICE CLOSES DOOR ON TERRORISM! ©
No this title does not tell the tale that you might suppose; we have not closed the door on international terrorism, only the reporting of it. We have not conquered the problem; we have only restricted information concerning it.
The State Department, under the auspices of Condoleezza Rice has abruptly decided not to release its annual report on international terrorist incidents. In the past twenty years, two volumes were routinely published. One was for public review, and another for classified personnel only. Now, there will only be one report available and it will not be widely released.
Why might this be? Some State Department officials say that the job is no longer theirs. The National Counter-Terrorism Center, an organization created by Congress, on the recommendation of the independent 9/11 Commission, now calculates these numbers. Therefore, the State Department argues that the job is no longer theirs and they need not be involved.
However, according to several Intelligence community sources, this is not the true reason or rationale for the decision. They say that this move is political. The Secretary and her Department do not wish to be embarrassed by their own statistics. They do not have a palatable way to explain recent reports. In 2004, there were 625 attacks; while in 2003, there were only 175. How would the Secretary defend this? After all, the President claims that we are making progress in our War-on-Terrorism.
How would she justify this twenty-year high! What would Miss Rice say when asked why this number does not include insurgent attacks in Iraq? It may be argued that the methodology differs from year to year; however, it has not changed in the past two decades. Suggestions for change were proposed, but not adopted. In each year, the same sound techniques were used.
It seems, just as access to all information from this Whitehouse does. The doors are closed, reports are sealed, secrecy is the mantra, and the message is missing.
It is official, Knight-Ridder Newspapers quotes from this post,
GOODBYE PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM? (updated 4/16) by Larry C. Johnson
The story, On the Media, Sunday April 24, 2005, See No Terror, Hear No Terror
More on the story, Condi kills 19-year annual U.S. terrorism report by by SusanHu, DailyKos
The story behind the story, General Accounting Office statistic on Terrorism.
The story resulting from the story, The Mercury News,
Representative Waxman demands probe of State Department terrorism reports, by Barry Schweid
As days go by, the story evolves.
MaxSpeaks, You Listen! takes us to The Independent Institute,
"Evidence that the U.S. May Be Losing the Global War on Terror" by Ivan Eland
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 25, 2005 at 02:00 AM in Condoleezza Rice, Policy, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
